Its been over 3 months and still no analysis from so many secularists and atheists who put their faith in whatever scientists say about our supposed relationship to chimps.
Has no others even read the study?
A month ago, I asked this question about the study:
Question #1: What was the total size of the chimp genome in the study? How many Giga base pairs?
Let's first look at the size/length of the human genome:
"The human genome contains 3164.7 (3.1 Gb) million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G)." (Human Genome News, 2001)
"The human genome is 3.3 Gb in length." (Integrated DNA Technologies, 2011)
"The nuclear genome comprises approximately 3 200 000 000 (3.2 Gb) nucleotides of DNA." (Genomes,, 2nd edition, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, Manchester, UK, 2002, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
So the human genome size is about 3.1 to 3.3 Giga base pairs. This averages to 3.2 Giga base pairs for the human genome.
Unfortunately, the chimp genome size they used in this 2005 comparison study was much smaller at 2.7 Gb. This is a size difference of about 15% in comparison to the 3.2 Gb human genome.
By size comparison, the chimp genome size used by the study is about 85% of the size of the human genome (2.7Gb/3.2Gb) = .85 or 85%.
Question #2: What about the remaining 15% of human genome? What was it compared to?
The only way to "perfectly align" both genomes, there would be a left-over of human genome of 15% since it is 15% larger. And with this 15% leftover of the human genome, this is still called a 99% similarity?
So the question is, how does the smaller chimp genome (for this specific study) - which is only about 85% of the human genome in size - exactly align to a much larger human genome?
How exact is the alignment between two genomes separated by (3.2Gb - 2.7Gb) = 500,000 bp or 15 %? The chimp genome and human genome were supposedly 99% similar BUT they differ in total length by 15%!
If one genome is 15% shorter, how do they "align" by 99% except by some 'fudging' with the sequences and 'expanding' one genome to 'fit' and "exactly align' with the other by introducing 'gaps' to artificially lengthen the shorter genome to match the longer one?
To make the deception worse, the total Gb of supposedly perfectly aligned chimp DNA was only 88% or 2.4Gb. This 2.4 Gb represents only 75% of the 3.2 Gb human genome. And this is still called a 99% similarity!
Bottom line: if the chimp genome length is 15% SHORTER than the human genome, how do we get a 99% similarity overall? Unless you 'cheat' and space the chimp genome further apart then is natural to do - in order to get the DNA sequences to meet end-to-end with the human genome, there is no perfectly aligned match-up.
If anyone decides to try and make this problem 'go away' by simply and vaguely stating: the 15% difference in genome size is rather large but we are able to 'accommodate' the difference and 'adjust' for the 15% difference by.....whatever disingenuous reason it is, look out for those terms which exaggerate and mislead, such as "close enough", "essentially aligned", "high-quality sequence", etc..
If they used a smaller human genome size (smaller than 3.2 Gb) for comparison and which was closer in size to the chimp genome they used, this is also a problem because that would mean they were missing a significant portion of existing human genome for comparison in their study to work with - which means the study itself is not complete. Not good.
We also need to remember that the term "scaffold" used to "align" the chimp genome. The "scaffold" is referring to the human genome framework which was used as the framework to generate the chimp genome! No surprise that both genomes "align" with each other! This is another biased methodology used to ensure that the HIGHEST level of "alignment" between the two genomes.
Verse for the day:
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened...
Matthew 7: 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!
Page 9 of 9
Here is the 85% proof:
The human genome size is 3.2 Giga base pairs. T
The chimp genome size used in the 2005 genome comparison study was 2.7 Giga base pairs
This means the chimp genome length is 15% SHORTER than the human genome.
This, in turn, means there is a maximum of 85% similarity, at best, if all elements line-up perfectly end-to-end, which they don't.
Ergo, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for the chimp and human genomes to be 99% similar - this LIE is willingly believed by faithful followers of the Theory of Evolution.
Anyone who believes our human genome is 99% similar to a much shorter chimp genome, is living in a fantasy AND does not understand simple math or....
The greater likelihood is that people are simply reading article titles making big claims (junk news/fake news) and faithfully believing whatever little they do read on the topic....to each their own, but if you care about your eternal future...
2 Thessalonians 2: They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie..."
After all these years, no evolutionist has answered the following questions:
Human genome = 3.2 Giga base pairs long
Chimp genome = 2.7 Giga base pairs long
Difference = 3.2 - 2.7 = 1.5 Giga base pairs
The Chimp genome is 15% SHORTER than the Human genome.
1) How do we get 99% similarity when one is 15% SHORTER than the other?
2) How did they align each genome when doing the comparison when one is 15% SHORTER than the other?
All of this DEMONSTRATES the claim of 99% similarity to be BOGUS.
Also, can you provide a link to the research paper that gives lengths of the genomes rather than simply stating it out of context?
If you consult the writings of actual scientists in the field, you will discover that neither the 99 percent nor any other specific percent has been stated as absolute fact, but as an estimation. It is subject to refinement, as is all of science. Science dies not declare absolute truths, but makes models that give the best explanations based in current knowledge.
Bonus question, why does it matter to you if we are 85% compatable instead of another specific percentage? Any percentage you wish to come up with can be explained as the result of greater or lesser genetic drift.
Of course if you want to go into epigenetics we have less methylated Dna bases than Chimpanzees.
So what does this mean? We are genetically 98.6% similar to Chimpanzees and only 1.2% different genetically. I think that is an impressive similarity. But we are related so what do you expect.
Maybe we should compare the genetic difference between mice and men? How much difference would you expect?
Where to start...
Before I try to explain anything, I would like to determine how in-depth I can go.
1. Do you believe that all human genomes are of equal length?
2. Do you believe all humans have the same number of genes?
3. Do you consider indels to be single mutational events? If not, why not?
4. Have you looked into the GB sizes of the genomes of taxa that creationists accept to have been derived from an 'original Kind'? if not, why not?
So many creationist drive-by spammers... I wonder if this is some kind of 'mission' for these folks?
Comparing human genomes to other human genomes shows:
"...that 84% of an individual human genome can be sequenced confidently. This high-confidence region includes 91.5% of exon sequence and 95.2% of known pathogenic variant positions. We present the distribution of over 150 million single-nucleotide variants in the coding and noncoding genome. Each newly sequenced genome contributes an average of 8,579 novel variants. In addition, each genome carries on average 0.7 Mb of sequence that is not found in the main build of the hg38 reference genome."
On average, 0.2% of human genomes are thus 'unalignable.' And we are the same species, 'separated' by a few hundred thousand years of evolution.
But these folks are just so darned confident in their wrongness...
Page 9 of 9